Columns of budget numbers, coupled with testimony by Burlington city councilors, signaled Wednesday’s end of the trial portion of a lawsuit against former Chief Administrative Officer Jonathan Leopold.

The trial’s fourth day added to evidence that Leopold, in near-secrecy, oversaw the expenditure of $16.9 million from the city’s general fund to Burlington Telecom in 2008 and 2009 in violation of state regulations and the City Charter.

Toor, who is deciding the case rather than having a jury trial, has not announced when she will issue her ruling.

A fundamental question lingered Wednesday as the attorneys packed up their reams of documents: What had been Leopold’s intent in the financial maneuvering?

Leopold’s legal team emphasized his devotion to the survival of the city-owned Internet, telephone and cable TV utility.

Leopold’s efforts to secure financing for the Burlington Telecom’s build-out took priority over following state restrictions on taxpayers’ risk, his lawyers added.

Former City Councilors Fred Osier and Eugene Shaver filed the lawsuit in 2009 on behalf of taxpayers. Their case asserts that Leopold deliberately hid the payments (and the regulatory violations) from the City Council in order to preserve his job with the administration of then-Mayor Bob Kiss.

The lawsuit demands that Leopold (and/or his insurance carrier) return $16.9 million to the city’s general fund.

The outstanding debt was cited last year by Moody’s Financial Service as a factor in its downgrades of Burlington’s bond rating.

Wednesday, several councilors, called by the plaintiffs, testified to their frustration regarding the level to which Leopold kept them informed of the growth pains of Burlington Telecom.

Wright and Montroll — who were rivals with then-Mayor Kiss in the March 2009 mayoral election — both testified that a public announcement of BT’s financing violations certainly would have become a campaign issue.

Kiss defeated Wright, who also also a Republican state representative, and Montroll in a close three-way race that year.

Montroll, who had been a legal adviser to White River Junction-based ValleyNet telecommunications in 2008, told Toor that discussions about Burlington Telecom in the council’s Board of Finance meetings halted about a month before the mayoral election.

The reason Leopold gave: Through conflicts of interest, Montroll’s involvement with the central Vermont network might place Burlington Telecom at a competitive disadvantage.

Paul testified that Leopold, when asked for audit management summaries in early 2009, demurred.

She finally obtained the documents that fall.

The summaries — which had been addressed to the mayor and to the council, along with Leopold — included yearly cautions about the lack of budgetary and regulatory oversight, Paul said.

Paul also told Toor that the Kiss administration rejected her request to have an independent attorney look into the legal risks to the city that Burlington Telecom posed.

Wright, too, said he met with resistance.

“I remember being chastised for being critical of Burlington Telecom,” he testified.

Leopold took the stand later in the day for at least the fourth time during the trial, called again by the defense. His lawyers presented documents that Leopold identified as providing clear indications that revenues were coming up short of Burlington Telecom’s expenses — which was why he made the financial moves he did.

Norman Walker, a retired CPA and former professor of accounting at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, testified that the criss-crossing of accounting methods in Leopold’s budgets were confusing to experts and, presumably, to untrained eyes.